ArcDigital Defends the New York Times.

I won't.

ArcDigital’s Nicholas Grossman has a post up, “We Must Defend the New York Times.” I disagree. This doesn’t mean that Grossman’s post is bad per se. I would never write it, but I don’t hate Grossman for doing so (nor, do I believe, should you). Nor do I believe that his position is thoughtless, or even ill-considered. Indeed, he makes several important points, like this one which should be first and foremost in our consideration:

We need to know what’s happening, and they’re in the best position to find out and tell us. With their high-up spot in the media ecosystem, if they fall, other outlets will likely change their behavior to Trump’s liking in response.

Combined with a later bit, Grossman can be fairly paraphrased as saying that factual reporting is necessary, and that less prominent and less wealthy outlets may be better on the issues, but they aren’t better on the fundamental factual reporting necessary to effective anti-Trump resistance.

It’s a good point.

Ultimately, however, I disagree with Nicholas Grossman’s advocacy position that

we should do what we can to support the New York Times

Rather, I agree with Grossman’s earlier statement,

The New York Times has the most, and the most secure, resources to resist [Trump], including impressive in-house attorneys.

and for that reason, I’m quite comfortable in not “supporting” the Times.

Grossman is correct that on many issues we should prefer the billionaire Sulzbergers’ ownership habits to those of Bezos (WaPo) or Soon-Shiong (LA Times), two men who have lately shown more willingness to interfere in the newsroom. The Sulzbergers’ are much worse than say, Bezos and his WaPo for trans people, of course, whom the NY Times hates with a particular and unscientific passion. But I’m fine with the argument that there are many issues that matter, and fiercely fighting Trump is necessary for nearly all of them.

The problem here isn’t that Grossman concludes the NYTimes is better for the US people than some other reporting outlets or even every other reporting outlet. Nor is Grossman wrong to say that as much as many of us might loathe the NYTimes’ take on things, we must know the things before we can have a take. Thus large, well-resourced reporting outlets are, indeed, a necessity.

But let’s go back to this bit above:

The New York Times has the most, and the most secure, resources to resist [Trump], including impressive in-house attorneys.

The NYT doesn’t need (or want) the support of Pervert Justice or of me. Meanwhile, high school kids in my own hometown are being beaten into the ground before being kicked into the neurology ward. Why? Because of hatred for trans people. If a choice must be made between supporting local school kids and supporting a multibillion dollar corporation, should I really come down on the side of the NYTimes?

And make no mistake that this choice is necessary. As a discrete being with finite resources and also with decades of expertise in things other than government/media relations, I will be much more productively deployed in, much better skilled at, and much more needed supporting many people and causes other than a billionaire family and its well-resourced newspaper.

Will I root for NYTimes when they fight Trump? Sure.

Will I lift a finger to actively support them? Probably not. There may come a time when the NYT is on the ropes and I feel moved to oppose Trump, but it won’t be to support the NYT that I write or take action.

If I fight the Trump administration and the NYT benefits from that, all well and good. I believe that everyone should and that everyone will benefit from successful opposition to Trump and his administration. I won’t fail to stand up to Trump because the NYT might end up better off.

But no one should, not for one second, believe that my intent is to support the Sulzbergers and their hatemongery.

On the other hand, there are people whose particular talents and resources lend themselves to defending the NY Times. Should the staff of the Columbia Journalism Review refocus on semi-rural trans kids in Western Washington? No. Of course not. Grossman is correct that Trump will attack the flow of information and that widespread dissemination of the facts of the US situation are necessary to effective opposition. The CJR can and should continue to cover (amongst other things) the relationship between government and fact journalism, and the people who support the CJR’s mission should continue to support it.

Ultimately, then, the problem with Grossman’s rallying cry is that it is over broad and ill-targeted. The New York Times decided more than 50 years ago that it hated queer and trans people, and its coverage of gay men from the 50s through the 80s was disgusting. I personally believe that if it were up to the Sulzbergers, the Times would still cover gay men the same way. Likewise I’m sufficiently well read to remember how the Times covered lesbians and feminists even before I was born. The Times has dripped with condescension more than once, and even today uses the term “sex scandal” to describe credible accusations of rape — even rape targeting children, such as in the cases of Matt Gaetz and Linda McMahon. (Mercifully they learned to apply the term “abuse scandal” to the Roman Catholic Church at some point this century.)

The Times is not an institution I could ever support, not morally, and also because my expertise is simply inapposite.

I will fight Trump and his administration when I can, where I can. I do promise not to fill my eyes with so much hatred I cannot see when the Times is fighting Trump as well.

But this word “support,” is too large an ask. If the Times dies, I will not even mourn.

---

NYT Publishes A Reasonable Point of View

---

Crip Dyke also writes for the delightfully cussmouthed Wonkette!